Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate
Photo

Ahk Standard Library Collection, 2010 Sep (+Gui) ~ Libs: 100


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic
Sean
  • Members
  • 2462 posts
  • Last active: Feb 07 2012 04:00 AM
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2007

And I beg you, please make a notice about what license your script uses. That is an often neglected part, which can cause serious problems.

Are you really serious about that in this community? Few members care about that. What if someone copied your code and pretended that he wrote it himself? You could find many examples here in the forum. Nevertheless, what could you possibly do against them? Go to the court just for mere code snippets/scripts?

Here is my current rule. Forget about the codes once you posted them in the forum. Don't post codes that you want to protect, keep them only in your private community. Simple yet perfectly working so far.

Tuncay n-l-i mobile
  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --
@Sean, I ask you back: Are you really serious about that?

Do you mean licensing a free and open source software is senseless? I am only asking you to specify a license term, even it is public domain. Then say it is public domain. I dont know what you have to loose. It is up to you.

Learning one
  • Members
  • 1483 posts
  • Last active: Jan 02 2016 02:30 PM
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009
@All authors, especially function library authors
Please make a notice about what license your code uses.
When I say "author" in this text, I don't mean that "author" is any person who posted the code! No way!
"Author" in this text, is a person whose code (work/creation) is capable to be protected by copyright!

Why? (explanation from the legal point of view)
I believe that majority of authors post their code because they want that other people in AHK community could benefit from that code.
The problem is: When author doesn't specify a license, form the legal point of view*, his code is totally protected by default. People can
read the code, but they can't use it in any way! They can't even use it privately, for they personal use! That code has "you can only watch"
status - and that probably wasn't author's intention. If somebody wants to use the code in any way, he must contact the author and ask
him for permission to use it!

Problem is that some people think: If author posted his code, it is obvious that he wanted to share it for free, so I can use freely. --> from the
legal point of view - incorrect!
The bigger problem is that some authors think: If I post my code, it is obvious that I want to share it with for free, so I don't need to specify license.
--> from the legal point of view - incorrect! - author's code is totally protected, nobody can't use it in any way! Even private usage is not allowed!

So I want authors to understand that releasing the code without the license is equal to releasing it under most restrictive license - others can only
take a look at it, and they are not allowed use it (even not privately!), they can't distribute it (sell, rent, upload...) etc.*

My recommendations for function libraries;
- if you are very generous, declare your code as Public domain or use BSD License.
- if you are generous, use Lesser General Public License.
- If you are less generous (still generous), use General Public License.
- If you don't want to share it - simply don't post it.
(+ you can always write your own, unique license if you don't like to use pre-defined licenses)
_________________
*That's what the law in my country - Croatia says, but I believe that this is the case in majority of other countries as well.

tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007
I beleive within the US that unles a license aggreement is presented and accepted its considered public domain (not a lawyer)I know that the school i went to some years ago made a coment about javascript and html that wwent something like "unles your required to accept a license aggreement you can freely copy it and reuse it with exception to images, which are defined as "art" "
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

SoLong&Thx4AllTheFish
  • Members
  • 4999 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 27 May 2007
I suggest to move any further discussion about licenses to one of the various threads that are already on the forum otherwise it will simply be repeating points of view which doesn't help much :wink:

polyethene
  • Members
  • 5519 posts
  • Last active: May 17 2015 06:39 AM
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

I beleive within the US that unles a license aggreement is presented and accepted its considered public domain

No, you are wrong. By default scripts are unlicensed and copyrighted to their authors and no third party is allowed to use them without permission. This is the same in the US and EU, Chris has even confirmed it in a forum post. Prior art is related to patent law, not copyright or contractual laws.

autohotkey.com/net Site Manager

 

Contact me by email (polyethene at autohotkey.net) or message tidbit


tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007

I beleive within the US that unles a license aggreement is presented and accepted its considered public domain

No, you are wrong. By default scripts are unlicensed and copyrighted to their authors and no third party is allowed to use them without permission. This is the same in the US and EU, Chris has even confirmed it in a forum post. Prior art is related to patent law, not copyright or contractual laws.

I'll take you at your word the school i went to wasnt known for the professionalism of its intructors. Its interesting to know that.


I know from my role in game creation that Copyrights are pretty difficult to enforce without some great documentation. That said i now see the purpose of the license assuming Titan is correct. I hope Sean does as well. Not that I expect he would ever choose to enforce copyright

@hugov good idea but if so can we link from here to at least one of those threads for the sake of posterity.

Once again not to distract... Very cool application i plan on making heavy usage of it :D
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007
inspired by Titan i looked it up

<!-- m -->http://www.copyright... ... ml#website<!-- m -->

The original authorship appearing on a website may be protected by copyright. This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by copyright. Procedures for registering the contents of a website may be found in Circular 66, Copyright Registration for Online Works.

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”


Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

SoLong&Thx4AllTheFish
  • Members
  • 4999 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 27 May 2007

@hugov good idea but if so can we link from here to at least one of those threads for the sake of posterity.

There are quite a few, but this one is pretty extensive and has contributions by Chris and other well known AutoHotkey-ers

Ok to sell?
<!-- m -->http://www.autohotke...opic.php?t=4720<!-- m -->

sinkfaze
  • Moderators
  • 6367 posts
  • Last active: Nov 30 2018 08:50 PM
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2008

By default scripts are unlicensed and copyrighted to their authors and no third party is allowed to use them without permission.


The first part is correct, the second part is not entirely true. The Fair Use doctrine laid down in USC 17§107 allows for reproduction of certain materials for research or educational purposes, which would largely define the purpose of (and the code's purpose on) these forums. §108 also allows for reproduction as it pertains to libraries or archives and, while these forums may not appear to satisfy a layman's criteria for defining an archive, they appear to meet the legal definition. The language on computer programs laid down in USC 17§117(a)(2) also seems to reaffirm the right of archival with respect to computer programs.

I also think the description in USC 17§102(B) on the general subject matter of copyright is very telling in this situation:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.



In short I don't think we need to be too worried about getting expressed authorization from all users, although it would be in good form, it's not necessary.

Sean
  • Members
  • 2462 posts
  • Last active: Feb 07 2012 04:00 AM
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2007
What if I put the license term in COM.ahk? Then, isn't it like I put other scripts I posted in the forum without a license term automatically under the protected copyright? Do you really expect me to go through the labors to put a license term to all of my posted codes? I find it's ridiculous to put a license term in a script posted in a public forum anyway. BTW, I think I already granted you to redistribute COM.ahk.

polyethene
  • Members
  • 5519 posts
  • Last active: May 17 2015 06:39 AM
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

The Fair Use doctrine ... allows for ... educational purposes, ... libraries or archives...

I don't live in the US, I don't care about your doctrines. It is common knowledge that copyright law is a grey area and interpretations can vary in different courts depending on the judge, circumstances, appeals etc. The point I was making is that by using unlicensed code you are automatically taking on a legal risk, no matter how small or unlikely it is to manifest into an actual problem. While most individuals would simply ignore this, it may be a concern for large commercial companies with any involvement.

I don't think we need to be too worried about getting expressed authorization from all users

Most of the time it is easy to use discretion and understand that code examples posted on the forum are for the benefit of everyone and can be used freely. I think Tuncay made his requests for reasons other than copyright legalities and for the purpose of etiquette. Licensing your work as open source means you are happy to waiver many restrictions and encourage free use and redistribution. Without such a license common sense dictates that you would need to contact the author directly to inform them and get their permission which takes more time and effort.

autohotkey.com/net Site Manager

 

Contact me by email (polyethene at autohotkey.net) or message tidbit


tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007
I hate (we all know it) to aggree with Titan. but the facts are posting code on the forum poses another albeit small risk. Ill pick on Sean for this one. Someone else could register YOUR work for copyright and sue YOU for money. this has happened to a friend of mine not with web content but some written work. Luckily he had a poor mans copyright and beat it but was still out some legal fees. I also know how easy it is to hack a web site and then delete posts... :roll: there goes any copyright you had to your work if someone else copyrights your work and sues you for its usage your gonna have a hard time prooving otherwise. Like Sean suggested tho to go to court over snippets is so unlikely i doubt its has happened much but be aware its possible
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.

Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006
I agree with Titan in all or most of what he wrote in this topic. He understands and explains well what i think.

I myself life in Germany (Europe).

I suggest to move any further discussion about licenses to one of the various threads that are already on the forum otherwise it will simply be repeating points of view which doesn't help much Wink

He is right. That isn`t a new subject to us.

@Sean

Forget about the codes once you posted them in the forum. Don't post codes that you want to protect, keep them only in your private community.

May be you did misunderstood me. I want protect the freedom of my code, not the usage.

What if someone copied your code and pretended that he wrote it himself?

I would contact that person to find a solution. Such a behaviour is called "steal". Do you tolarate that? Thiefs should be at least banned! May be in real world, I cannot do anything. But I would fight for my rights.

What if I put the license term in COM.ahk? Then, isn't it like I put other scripts I posted in the forum without a license term automatically under the protected copyright? Do you really expect me to go through the labors to put a license term to all of my posted codes? I find it's ridiculous to put a license term in a script posted in a public forum anyway.

It should be copyrighted by default license of your country? I dont know, and that is the reason why I asked. That would make things about that topic clearer. If you do not want to edit all your code postes, at least a link at your signature to another post explaining the license could do the job I think.
And yes you did allow me to republish your COM.ahk. And thx for that. I did not try to force you doing something.

No signature.


sinkfaze
  • Moderators
  • 6367 posts
  • Last active: Nov 30 2018 08:50 PM
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2008

I don't live in the US, I don't care about your doctrines.


Apparently you do care if you bothered to say this, with all of your expertise on U.S. copyright law:

By default scripts are unlicensed and copyrighted to their authors and no third party is allowed to use them without permission. This is the same in the US....


And I'm telling you that's not necessarily the case. By the way, the "doctrine" is established federal law in the U.S. so if you don't care it's at your own risk, since your works are under copyright here as well as under EU guidelines.

Licensing your work as open source means you are happy to waiver many restrictions and encourage free use and redistribution. Without such a license common sense dictates that you would need to contact the author directly to inform them and get their permission which takes more time and effort.


Copyright laws, both in U.S. and EU statutes, give the author the exclusive right to dictate certain activites with regards to their works if they so choose. That doesn't mean that authors are required to exercise those dictates, only that if cetain activities involving their work fall under the copyright that they and only they have the right to dictate how those shall work. So telling the authors they must declare their legal status as the copyright holder for every single piece of code written here in order for their general use to be legitimate is silly.

More particularly with code on these forums, the only thing that is copyrighted is the manner of expression of the work, not the functionality of the work itself. In the case of the COM Standard Library, for example, the only part to which Sean has a legitimate copyright is the function wrappers themselves. Not even his style of coding to make the function work falls under copyright, just the unique implementation of the function. So that's an awful long road to travel down for few results.